Skip to content
Login

Duncan O'Leary

photo of Duncan O'Leary

Duncan works on projects looking at public services, skills and work.

Posted by Duncan O'Leary at 10:56am on Monday, 3rd April 2006

The announcement from a group of 900 doctors that the government should look at moving away from an entirely tax-funded system of health is an interesting one. The obvious question is: why should we listen to them? Is it because they are experts who know the health service inside out? They are professionals after all. Or do they represent 'the producer interest' ' a phrase we keep hearing recently. In which case, why should we listen to them at all? Shouldn't we be listening to service users instead? Or what about a third option: they are a group of people who hold a [deeply] political view, and have found a way of expressing it?

The first two options seem pretty one-dimensional, but it's perhaps hardest to know what to do with the third one. If they are just a bunch of people with some views on the world, does it even matter that they happen to be doctors? When does the professional get political? And when (+ why) should we listen?

Comments

1
And look at just how deep those political views go... for those who are interested, Doctors for Reform is an offshoot of the think tank Reform. DfR is independent, but based at the same address and the two organisations share the presence of Dr Karol Sikora on their boards. Reform claims to be non-party aligned, but it is clearly on the right of the political spectrum. Their advisory council includes people like Ruth Lea and Chris Woodhead, who aren't exactly known for their neutrality. This raises an important question about the nature of professional statements like today's. The docs want to be perceived as professionals who desire only the best for the NHS. Maybe they are. But if so, doesn't making that statement with the support of a right-wing think tank seem naieve at best?
Posted by Simon Parker  at 1:06pm on Monday, 3rd April 2006
2
I suggest we listen to all those with vested interests in Britain?s healthcare system. In doing so we expand the pool of shared meaning which usually leads to better decision making and possibly to an improved NHS. I don?t claim to know how to solve all the NHS?s many problems, but I do agree with Doctors for Reform that an open debate is sorely required if ever we are going to have the slightest possibility of lifting NHS medical standards and provision to ?world-class? levels. It would also be helpful if those who create the health system, the politicians, would show genuine commitment by using the NHS exclusively in their own medical treatment. Yes, I am suggesting that we ask MP?s to agree to get on the back of the waiting list cues like everyone else. I invite all UK citizens to sign a petition that asks MP?s to exclusively use the NHS in their own medical treatment and in the medical treatment of their immediate families without opt out. If the politicians were to put their lives on the line, as it were, by committing to exclusively use the NHS themselves, then the one million people who work for the NHS in the frontline trenches might gain a measure of belief that their own day to day efforts could transform the NHS into the ?world-class? institution that all who live here would be proud to use. Sir Winston Churchill, who knew a thing or two about winning wars once said, ?The price of greatness is responsibility.? Perhaps it is time for those who run the country to take responsibility for the health system they have created. They should use it themselves without opt out. Richard Solomon OurPetition.org www.ourpetition.org
Posted by Richard Solomon  at 6:04pm on Tuesday, 4th April 2006

LOGIN to add comments